Stronger brands in all product categories based on
warmth and competence?
Voorn, R.J.J. & Muntinga, D. (2017)
INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The stereotype content model postulates that variations in our evaluation of others are largely explained on the basis of “the Big Two”: our perceptions of warmth (inten-tions) and competence (realisation of inten(inten-tions) (Fiske et al., 2002; Wojciszke et al., 1998). According to recent research, this also applies to a large extent to brands and organisations (Kervyn et al., 2012) because of our innate tendency to anthropomor-phise (e.g., Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Epley et al, 2007).
Together warmth and competence predicts up to 82 percent how we assess brands (Malone & Fiske, 2013). Warmth and competence hereby supersede tradition-al constructs that are used to predict the brand preference of consumers, as well as brand attitudes and brand personality, where warmth in many cases is more important than competence (Bernritter et al., 2016; Wojciszke et al., 1998). Being able to fore-cast warmth and competence therefore holds a great promise for brands.
It is nonetheless not known whether warmth and competence forecast different outcome variables in different ways (for example buying intentions and word-of mouth advertisement); and is it also not known whether the predictive power of warmth and competence differs per product category. Based on previous research on the social behaviour regarding brand recommendations (Bernritter et al., 2016), our hypotheses was that non-profit brands profit more from warmth and competence than commercial brands (Aaker et al., 2010).
METHOD
A questionnaire was distributed amongst members of a nationwide representative panel (N = 419, Mage = 45, SD = 1.13; 55.1% female). Respondents were randomly
assigned one of seven product categories. Each respondent assessed two (out of a total of 32) brands on a scale of warmth and competence. Following questions about brand recognition within the category and current trademark use, warmth and competence measured by means of the four items on the validated scale of Kervyn et al. (2012) (7-point Likert scale; Mwarmth = 4.6, SD = 1.3; Mcompetence = 4.6, SD = 1.2). Furthermore,
the degree to which one feels attracted to a brand was measured with an item on the scale of Park et al. (2013) (Mattraction = 6.9, SD = 2.1), as well as the intention to spread
word-of-mouth advertising (Mwom = 4.2, SD = 1.7). Switching intentions are also
measured with a 7-point Likert scale with a single question: “How likely is it that you [X] will remain a client of [X]/ continue using [X]?” (Mloyalty = 4.8, SD = 1.6). All
scales used were sufficiently reliable with a Cronbach’s alfa higher than .75.
RESULTS
Warmth and competence predicted to a large extent whether respondents were plan-ning to speak positively to others about a brand (R2 = .44, F(2,817) = 319.4 , p < .001), were attracted to this brand (R2 = .40, F(2,817) = 268.5, p < .001) and were
.001). The highest-scoring brands were, as expected, the non-profit category (Mwarmth
=5.5, SD = 1.2 and Mcompetence = 5.1, SD = 1.1). There are clear differences between
the different product categories. Competence accounts for 43% (β = .457, p < .01)
whether one felt attracted to an insurance brand and warmth was not significant, and for banks only warmth was decisive (R2 = .47, β=.550, p < .001). Perceptions regard-ing warmth (feelregard-ing) and competence (facts) are thus rather or less significant, accord-ing to the product category.
CONCLUSION
For most researched brands, warmth and/or competence were of great importance. Warmth and competence are strong forecasters of attraction power, brand loyalty, and word-of-mouth advertising. Specifically, as we assumed, the non-profits benefit the most here. This can however, as is the case with people, also depend on the objective that was pursued (Wojciszke et al., 1998). As opposed to existing literature, it was found in the research that different rules apply for each product category. And some-times, warmth or competence is not even a significant forecaster of the outcome measures. This has practical implications for marketers, which can determine for each category whether they need to focus properly or not on the increase of perceptions of warmth and/or competence for their brand. This appears to be an interesting field for further research, particularly because the research was limited in the number of prod-uct categories and brands that were researched. Future research by the authors will then further focus on studying the antecedents of warmth and competence per catego-ry.
References
Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224-237.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Re-search, 34(4), 468−479.
Bernritter, S. F., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2016). Why nonprofits are easier to endorse on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 33, 27-42.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor the-ory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864–886.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stere-otype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(6), 878-902. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents
frame-work: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of consumer psychology, 22(2), 166-176.
Malone, C. & Fiske, S. (2013). The Human Brand: How We Relate to People, Prod-ucts, and Companies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral cat-egories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251-1263.
